Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine whether teachers discriminate between three types of supervisory communication in post‐observation supervisory conferences. The conferences differed in the way in which they were mitigated: the first had high linguistic mitigation at the utterance level; the second was unmitigated; the third was unmitigated at the utterance level, but was mitigated above the utterance. The overall purpose was to seek corroboration, through experimental means, of conclusions drawn from a descriptive study of supervisory discourse which found pervasive evidence of mitigation in supervisory discourse addressed to the ‘face’ needs of the supervisee. This article reports a pilot study carried out to test the instruments (video and questionnaire) and to seek preliminary corroboration. The objective was to see whether teachers discriminate as hypothesised and to see what by‐products are produced by mitigation. The dependent variables were clarity, supportiveness, authority, gra...
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
